HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07131993 - H.7 H. 7
Contra
�'" Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: HARVEY E.BRAGDON County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: JUNE 17, 1993
SUBJECT: OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (5-93-EC)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open public hearing and receive testimony on proposed plan amendment request.
2. Certify as adequate the Negative Declaration on this project for purposes of acting on the
General Plan Amendment.
3. Close the public hearing and either:
(a) Uphold the East County Regional Planning Commission's recommendation to DENY the
general plan amendment request; or should the Board be so inclined,
(b) APPROVE the General.Plan Amendment and to direct staff to include it in one of the
consolidated general plan amendments for 1993,
FISCAL IMPACT
This is a County-initiated project for which the major costs of the plan amendment have already been
absorbed.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This plan amendment request is in direct response to Board direction for the provision of a senior
housing project in the Oakley area. The Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment was
recommended for DENIAL by the East County Regional Planning Commission, by a -1 vote, on
June 7, 1993. Although the Commission recommended denial, it was thought that thi pr oes
have many merits, but the site was not appropriate.
�TU
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ,RYES SIGNATIJ
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDAu6&4W—BOARD 0WMITTEE
—APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 7 13 9 3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
See Addendum A for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES:— NOES:— ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT:— ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Staff Contact: Matt Tomas July 13 , 1993
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: Deputy, Clerk of the Board
CAO's
Redevelopment Agency By 1A.10Y 4
Dept,of Public Works
OMAC
s,
Report on Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment
Continued - page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDAT10N
In October 1991, Supervisor Torlakson requested that the County begin the process which would
result in.the provision of senior housing in the Oakley area (See Attachment A - Board Order date
October 15, 1991). In response to this request, the Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee created a
subcommittee known as Citizens for Affordable Senior Housing (CASH) and in August, 1992 issued
a formal report, which examined in more detail, the need for senior housing in the Oakley area. This
report generally finds that there is a very high demand for senior housing in the Oakley area yet
none is being created by the housing market to fill this need.
In early 1993, the OMAC began working with the County Redevelopment Agency staff to begin the
process for site acquisition and development of an actual senior housing project. The Redevelopment
Agency then initiated discussions with Ecumenical Association for Housing, a non-profit housing
development organization which is based in the Bay Area. The discussions which were held with the
nonprofit developer included talks regarding site acquisition and assistance in funding for this
project.
Following these discussions, an intensive site selection effort proceeded which resulted in an
agreement to purchase the property within the pian amendment area for purposes of developing a
senior housing project. The County Redevelopment Agency and nonprofit developer are now
seeking a general plan amendment to allow the creation of 50 clustered, senior housing units.
Recent Actions - The Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee, at its June 14, 1993 meeting, voted to
allocate $338,347 from the Low and Moderate Income Set-Aside Fund for this project. These
monies are generated from the Oakley Redevelopment Project Area tax increment and may be used
for any project which expands the stock of affordable housing. The recommendation regarding
allocation of the Set Aside monies was just recently approved by the Board at their June 22, 1993
meeting by a unanimous vote.
These funds not only shows the County's committment in this project, but will also be used as seed
money to help the non-profit housing developer secure additional financial_ assistance in the form
Federal Housing & Urban Development 202 grant monies and Federal low-income Housing Tax
Credits.
A'P'BµH041 '"A r
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �,(�S� '
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson 'tra
Costa
DATE: October 15, 1991 County
SUBJECT: REQUEST HOUSING AUTHORITY TO PURSUE THE CONCEPT OF A SENIOR
HOUSING FACILITY IN THE OAKLEY AREA
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Recommended Action: Refer to the Housing Authority the
concept of providing a low-income senior housing facility in
Oakley. Request representatives of the Housing Authority to meet
with the Oakley . Municipal Advisory Council to discuss the
feasibility of establishing such a facility in the Oakley area
and the process required to establish it. In addition, work with
the Council to identify potential sites, and potential funding
sources.
Background Information: The waiting list for
low-income senior housing in East County is extensive, with an
estimated waiting period of five to seven years. The process to
establish a senior facility is time-consuming as well. Members
of the Oakley community have contacted me and expressed their
interest in providing a facility similar to that of Stoneman
Village (Pittsburg) in the Oakley area.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) v
ACTION OF BOARD ON -Ortnhar 22. 1 CM APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER .X _
The Board APPROVED the above recommendation, and added referral to the Deputy
Director of Redevelopment.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
_y UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Housing Authority ATTESTED nrrnhPr ')') 19g1
Oakley Redevelopment Staff via Dist V Phil Batchelor,Clerk-of the Board'ot--
Oakley Municipal Advisory Councilvia Dist.V Supmrv=and C=*AdmiaistrW,: :
Deputy Director of Redevelopment
M34a/7•83 BY DEPUTY
ADDENDUM A
.This is the time heretofore noticed for hearing on the
recommendation of the East County Regional Planning Commission on
a proposed General Plan amendment request to change the County
General Plan land use designation for a 1 . 92 acre property from
Single Family Residential, High Density (5 . 0 - 7 . 2 units/net
acre) to Multiple Family Residential, Very High Density (30 . 0 -
44 . 9 units/net acre) . The proposed plan amendment would support
up to 50 senior housing units . (5-93-EC) in the Oakley area.
Jim Cutler, Community Development Department, presented the
staff report on the proposed amendment, commented on the East
County Regional Planning Commission' s recommendation for denial
of the proposed amendment, and he commented on the above staff
recommendations.
Carol Norris, Redevelopment Agency, explained the
involvement of the Redevelopment Agency as a result of a Board
Order in 1991 and she also commented on the various senior
housing available and the possible sites that had been looked at
for this proposed senior housing project . Ms . Norris requested
the Board' s support for this General Plan amendment .
The public hearing was opened and the following persons
spoke :
Lamar Turner, 469 E. Francisco Boulevard, Suite B, San
Rafael, representing Ecumenical Association for Housing, spoke in
favor of the proposed amendment and described the proposed senior
housing project .
Tim Van Meter, Van Meter, Williams, Pollak, made an
architecture presentation.
Patti Kratina, 320 Woodview Place, Oakley, representing
Citizens for Affordable Senior Housing, spoke in favor of the
proposed project .
Janette Kratina, 320 Woodview Place, Oakley, Citizens for
Affordable Senior Housing, spoke in favor.
Sonny Escadero, 701 Domaine Court, Oakley, representing
Oakley Municipal Advisory Council, spoke in favor.
James Pate, 5116 Sandmound, Oakley, Delta Youth Center
Project, spoke in favor.
Craig Williams, 1359 Port Court, Oakley, spoke in favor.
Rodger McKeon, 5140 Kegan Lane, Oakley, spoke in opposition.
Nordyn Anderson, no address given, spoke in favor.
Cheri Budesilich, 819 Walnut Drive, Oakley, Citizens for
Affordable Senior Housing, spoke in favor.
Richard Lujan, 837 Arnold Drive, Martinez, United Council of
Spanish Speaking Organizations, spoke in support of the project .
Bev Novarina, 1629 Carpenter Road, Oakley, Citizens for
Affordable Senior Housing, spoke on emergency services for
seniors and in support of the project .
Bob Kratina, 320 Woodview Place, Oakley, spoke in support of
the proposed amendment .
The following persons submitted comments in support or
expressing concerns :
Marie Woods, 201 Gamay, Oakley, in support .
Lucille Kretschmer, 326 E. Ruby Street, Oakley, in support .
4
Ray Novarina, 1629 Carpenter Road, Oakley, in support .
Marie Bernadette Escudero, 701 Domaine Court, Oakley, in
support .
Tom McGrane, 500 Windsor Court, Oakley, expressed concerns .
Warren Jensen, 5181 Kegan Lane, Oakley, expressed concerns .
Victoria Payne, 2209 Ventnor Lane, Oakley, expressed
concerns .
Patricia Jensen, 5181 Kegan Lane, Oakley, expressed
concerns .
Tammy McKeon, 5140 Kegan Lane, Oakley, expressed concerns .
Lamar Turner spoke in rebuttal and requested approval of the
General Plan amendment .
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Torlakson recommended that the Board act
favorably on the General Plan amendment and commented that the
integration of this project with the neighborhood both visually
and in any kind of program or social integration is very
important . Supervisor Torlakson moved approval of the General
Plan amendment .
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Resolution No. 93/430 in the
matter of the. Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (5-93-
EC) is ADOPTED.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 13, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION NO. 93/430
SUBJECT: In the Matter of the )
Oakley Senior Housing )
General Plan Amendment )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that:
There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 24-1993, adopted by the
East County Regional Planning Commission, which discusses a General Plan Amendment for
the Oakley Senior Housing (#5-93-EC).
On July 13, 1993, the Board held a hearing on the said General Plan Amendment discussed by
the East County Regional Planning Commission Resolution 24-1993. Notice of said hearing was
duly given in the manner required by law. The Board, at the hearings, called for testimony of
all persons interested in this matter.
After taking testimony, the Board closed the public hearing and APPROVED the General Plan
Amendment as recommended by staff and directed staff to include the Oakley Senior Housing
General Plan Amendment in one of the consolidated general plan amendments as allowed by
State Planning Law.
The Board of Supervisors also APPROVED the Negative Declaration on the project as adequate
for County purposes.
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Sup isor on the date shown.
ATTESTED:
PHIL TCH JR,dark of the Board
of upervisor nd County p7lstraor
BY v Dent tv
Mst/OsldeySr.res
RESOLUTION 93/430
Contra
TO; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: HARVEY E.BRAGDON County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: JUNE 17,1993
SUBJECT: OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (5-93-EC)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open public hearing and receive testimony on proposed plan amendment request.
2. Certify as adequate the Negative Declaration on this project for purposes of acting on the
General Plan Amendment.
3. Close the public hearing and either:
(a) Uphold the East County Regional Planning Commission's recommendation to DENY the
general plan amendment request;or should the Board be so inclined,
(b) APPROVE the General Plan Amendment and to direct staff to Include It in one of the
consolidated general plan amendments for 1993.
FI.RrAl-IMPACT
This Is a County4hitiated project for which the major costs of the plan amendment have already been
absorbed.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDA11ONS
This plan amendment request is in direct response to Board direction for the provision of a senior
housing project In the Oakley area. The Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment was
recommended for DENIAL by the East County Regional Planning Commission, by a -1 vote, on
June 7, 1993. Although the Commission recommended denial,it was thought that thil pr oes
have many merits,but the site was not appropriate.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -[YES SIGNATU
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR—RECOMMENDABOARD C61QMFiiE-
_APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S),
ACTION OF BOARD ON— APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT i TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES:_ NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:— MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Staff Contact: Matt Tomas
Orig:Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: Deputy, Clerk of the Board
CAO's
Redevelopment Agency
Dept,of Public Works
OMAC
Report on Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment •.q
Continued-page 2
BACKGROUNDIRF.AgONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
In October 1991, Supervisor Torlakson requested that the County begin the process which would
result in the provision of senior housing in the Oakley area(See Attachment A - Board Order date
October 15, 1991). In response to this request,the Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee created a
subcommittee known as Citizens for Affordable Senior Housing(CASH)and in August, 1992 issued
a formal report,which examined in more detail,the need for senior housing in the Oakley area. This
report generally finds that there is a very high demand for senior housing in the Oakley area yet
none is being created by the housing market to fill this need.
In early 1993,the OMAC began working with the County Redevelopment Agency staff to begin the
process for site acquisition and development of an actual senior housing project. The Redevelopment
Agency then initiated discussions with Ecumenical Association for Housing, a non-profit housing
development organization which is based in the Bay Area. The discussions which were held with the
nonprofit developer included talks regarding site acquisition and assistance in funding for this
project.
Following these discussions, an intensive site selection effort proceeded which resulted in an
agreement to purchase the property within the plan amendment area for purposes of developing a
senior housing project. The County Redevelopment Agency and nonprofit developer are now
seeking a general plan amendment to allow the creation of 50 clustered,senior housing units.
Recent Actions-The Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee, at its June 14, 1993 meeting, voted to
allocate $338,347 from the Low and Moderate Income Set-Aside Fund for this project. These
monies are generated from the Oakley Redevelopment Project Area tax increment and may be used
for any project which expands the stock of affordable housing. The recommendation regarding
allocation of the Set Aside monies was just recently approved by the Board at their June 22., 1993
meeting by a unanimous vote.
These funds not only shows the County's committment in this project,but will also be used as seed
money to help the non-profit housing developer secure additional financial assistance in the: form
Federal Housing & Urban Development 202 grant monies and Federal low-income Housing Tax
Credits.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 5� l
Contra
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson WJIa
DATE: October 15, 1991 County
SUBJECT: REQUEST HOUSING AUTHORITY TO PURSUE THE CONCEPT OF A SENIOR
HOUSING FACILITY IN THE OAKLEY AREA
SPECIFIC REQUESTS)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Recommended Action: Refer to the Housing Authority the .
concept of providing a low-income senior housing facility in
Oakley. Request representatives of the Housing Authority to meet
with the Oakley . Municipal Advisory Council to discuss the
feasibility of establishing such a facility in the Oakley area
and the process required to establish it. In addition, work with
the Council to identify potential sites, and potential funding
sources.
Background Information: The waiting list for
low-income senior housing in East County is extensive, with an
estimated waiting period of five to seven years. The process to
establish a senior facility is time-consuming as well. Members
of the Oakley community have contacted me and expressed their
interest in providing a facility similar to that of Stoneman
Village (Pittsburg) in the Oakley area.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTf YES SIGNATURE?
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON --Ortnhor 99. 1 QQ1 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
The Board APPROVED the above recommendation, and added referral to the Deputy
Director of Redevelopment.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
y UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Housing Authority ATTESTED nrtnhar 11 1991
Oakley Redevelopment Staff via Dist V Phil Batchelor,Clerk-of the Board'of-
Oakley Municipal Advisory Councilvia Dist.V SUpervis=and CouatyAdmioistt.fat:: :
Deputy Director of Redevelopment � �� •
M34a/7.63 BY DEPUTY
Resolution No. 24-1993
RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, OAKLEY
SENIOR HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT#5-93-CO,FOR THE OAKLEY AREA.
WHEREAS, the County initiated a proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the County General
Plan. The request is to change the Land Use designation on 1.92 acres from SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENISTY to MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,VERY HIGH DENSITY;
and
WHEREAS, the County staff prepared a Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment study
area; and
WHEREAS, staff prepared a report recommending changes in the General Plan for the area and
circulated it to interested agencies, organization and individuals; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Monday June 7, 1993, and all that wished to testify were
heard and the public hearing was closed; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission accepts
the Negative Declaration prepared by staff to be adequate to consider this amendment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there are many social merits with a senior housing project and
that alternative sites should be actively sought to support a project since there exists other properties
in the Oakley area which are designated for Multiple Family Residential densities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there are vacant properties which are closer to basic community
services and further away from heavily traveled roadways that could support the requested density
increase for senior housing; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there lacks adequate buffers between the plan amendment area
and the surrounding single family-designated properties; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission
RECOMMENDS DENIAL of the Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment to the Board of
Supervisors; and
Page Two Resolution 24 -1993
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and pertaining to
these proceedings are made part of the record; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission
shall sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the .same to the Board of
Supervisors, all in accordance with the provisions of State Planning Law.
The instruction by the.East County Regional Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was
given by motion of the Commission on Monday June 7, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Hansen
NOES: Commissioners - Planchon, Andeiu and Hem
ABSENT: Commissioners - Sobalvarro and Wetzel
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
I, Harvey E. Bragdon, Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was fully called and held in
accordance with the law on Monday June 7, 1993.
ATTEST:
ve a don
Secretary - East County Regional Planning ssion,
County of Contra Costa, State of alifornia
Mr'sMZPA's\ECRPC Reda Sr Hsg GPA
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Board of Supervisors
Staff Report and Recommendations
Tuesday, July 13, 1993
Agenda Item#
Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (5-93-EC)
•I. INTRODUCTION:
This is a county-initiated general plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land
use designation for a 1.92 acre property from Single Family Residential, High Density to Multiple
Family Residential, Very High Density which would support a senior housing project. The plan
amendment area is located on the north side of Oakley Road, between Live Oak Avenue and Highway
4 as shown in Figure 1.
II. CEQA STATUS:
A Negative Declaration (no environmental impact report required) for the plan amendment was
issued June 7, 1993. The Initial Study of Environmental Significance is attached. Separate
environmental review will be conducted on the forthcoming current planning entitlements if the plan
amendment is approved.
III. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The plan amendment area is a rectangular-shaped parcel consisting of 1.92 acres. The site contains a
detached single family structure with related accessory structures. There are several existing trees,
some of which are located near the periphery of the plan amendment boundary and some which are
located within the front yard setback of Oakley Road.
A new street, along the western boundary of the plan amendment area, has been built to serve a new
residential subdivision, now under construction. Five new, two-story homes, which are part of the new
subdivision, are located along the northern border of the plan amendment area. Kelsey Lane provides
a hard edge along the western border and could provide additional access into the plan amendment
area. Oakley Road provides primary access to the plan amendment area and is the southern border,
while a vacant parcel is located along the eastern side of the plan amendment area.
1
i
OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
County Fite#5-93-EC
+
i
NORTH
' was+•�.�r a a
I"= 6w .1,
+ �—__ +tea --. _._�i--• + +
-pw WSW
mr,
L F
t�
4 .
awwi u
S !
to
so
1
CM.IV.M
SITE �w
' A.P 390-101
r
r
t � 1
+
-----------------------
-
__ _ + +
.w '
--------------------------
en
re
FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP
IV. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The plan amendment area is designated as Single Family Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 units/net
acre). Existing County General Plan land use designations are shown in Figure 2. The existing
zoning for the plan amendment area is R-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot parcel
minimums). Existing zoning designations are shown in Figure 3.
V. PUBLIC SERVICES:
The site is presently served by all urban services which are needed to support the development. There
are no public service constraints which would affect the plan amendment proposal.
VI. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS:
The plan amendment area is already designated for urban development and is within the service area
boundaries for all required urban services. The forthcoming subdivision will pay parkland
dedication fees which will meet park requirements. The resulting subdivision will pay an east county
sheriff fee to offset costs of providing police service to the larger Oakley area. The plan amendment
will not require a traffic analysis under Measure C - 1988 requirements since the proposed 50 senior
housing units is well under the 100 unit threshold which triggers that requirement.
Because senior housing projects such as this typically generate fewer peak hour commute trips, the
project will pay reduced fees into the County Public Works AOB (Oakley/North Brentwood & East
County) program for road improvements. The Diablo Water District and Ironhouse Sanitary District
(formerly Oakley Water and Oakley Sanitary Districts)provides water and sanitary sewer services.
The Oakley Fire District provides fire protection services in this part of the county.
The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard- The plan amendment is in an area which is already
designated for urban development. The proposed increase in residential density will not affect the
65/35 standard since it does not involve a change from a non-urban land use designation.
3
OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
County File#5-93-EC
♦ � 4 ♦
SH
NORTIi HI
I"- 600'
LEGEND PR
SL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW
SH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-HIGH
ML MEDIUM FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW CO
MM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM
LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
HI HEAVY INDUSTRIAL J,I
CO COMMERCIAL
PR PARKS &RECREATION • •
I I
-� SH
w �
f�11v.M
« a
r"
s '
w
.I
! r
4
wat• e
M CO
SL '-
- SH ♦ ♦ ML
MILc
---------------
'SH
�------
FIGURE 2 EXISTING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
OAKLEY SENIOR;'HOUSING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
county File#5-93-Ec
Y+NiAcc
FE LAND IMPROVEMENT
e0 Wq t
H-1
w
=CR TA 8t
Q
wtN tT.
NORTH
R-6
UV= 6 R-6
CARO,
` M Tal
WTA
P•7�
t
; r R-6
t
•
i
RIO
A 2 R-7
P�1
n.C1' L,r. •
-- ;
LEGEND
R-6 Single Family Residential(6,000 sq. ft.)
r•. R-7 Single Family Residential _ u
R-10 Single Family Residential(10,000
0,000 sqfti
h,) • +
'
R-40 Single Family Residential (40,000 sq. $, M29
L-1 Light Industrial -
H-1 Heavy Industrial
P-1 Planned Unit Development ;CHARDON
T-1 Mobile Home Park p
A-2 General Agriculture s * �'"-1
!!! M-22!9 Detached Single Residential R-6
4
Q
FIGURE 3 EXISTING ZONING MAP
VII. GENERAL PLAN POLICY ISSUES TO CONSIDER FOR THIS PLAN AMENDMENT:
Housing Element &State Planning Law Considerations - On December 15, 1992 the County
approved a revised Housing Element as part of an ongoing program to ensure that element meets all
state planning requirements. The Housing Element General Plan Amendment was a county-initiated
project to meet State requirements for Housing Element conformance and received approval from the
State Department of Housing and Community Development.
The County's Housing Element, as required by State Law, includes strategies to provide affordable
housing to all income levels and to all segments of the County's population. The County.is required
by law to have a program in.place to ensure that the goals and objectives contained within that
element are achieved.
Generally speaking, the County General Plan encourages the creation of new housing opportunities
to serve all income levels and encourages projects which provide a diversity of living options.
Although Oakley is a community which will undergo continued residential development and will
generally house younger home buyers and families, the proposed project is an opportunity to begin
providing affordable housing opportunities.for the older Oakley population.
Fair Share Housing Obligations - An additional requirement of State Law is that local jurisdictions
are obligated to provide a minimal amount of"affordable" housing. The Association of Bay Area
Governments develops estimates on the.amount of affordable housing the County is expected to
produce. The 1989 Housing Determination Needs report is the most recent report which identifies
the County's "fair share housing need." The proposed plan amendment will.help fulfill this
requirement.
New Legislation, Assembly Bill 315: Redevelopment Housing Production Requirements - The
California State Legislature recently passed into law AB 315. This law, in effect as of January 1,
1993, is aimed at existing and any new project areas which are created under the provision of State
Redevelopment Law. The broad intent of.AB 315 is to require any new housing development which,
occurs within a Redevelopment Project Area to provide a minimum 153'0 of the units at prices eligible
to meet affordable housing criteria. The legislation also requires the Redevelopment Agency to
monitor affordable housing development as part of that Agency's Redevelopment program.
The proposed plan amendment would not only help achieve many of.the County's Housing Element
6
goals and objectives, but it would be consistent with the intent and requirements of AB 315 since 100
percent of the project would meet "affordability" criteria.
Land Use Considerations - The proposed plan amendment would result in a significantly higher
density than what is presently allowed by the County General Plan. Since the plan amendment area is
already designated for urban development and is within all needed urban service areas to serve the
proposed development, the primary issue, in terms of land use compatibility, relates to potential
conflicts which may result if the plan amendment is approved.
Land use compatibility issues which are created by the proposed general plan amendment relate to
potential conflicts with the existing new homes bordering the plan amendment area to the north and
potential visual impacts which might be created from the increased development density. In addition
to potential conflicts, there are other advantages which the geographic location of the plan
amendment area provides, in terms of convenient access to essential services, which would benefit the
senior population.
Land Use Compatibility - Five new homes abut the plan amendment area on the northern edge.
Potential conflicts which might develop relate to the location of buildings and any activities which
might be proposed next to these new homes. Although the specific solutions to address these
potential concerns is a site planning issue, provision of adequate setbacks and buffers along the
periphery of the plan amendment area should address these issues from a general plan policy
perspective.
Access - Ingress and egress into the plan amendment area should consider use of existing streets,
namely Oakley Road and Kelsey Lane. Access should minimize turn movements onto and from
Oakley Road. Additionally, there exists a vacant parcel which borders the plan amendment area to
the east. Although the proposed project will likely be constructed within a year or so of receiving
final approvals, access should also consider potential development of the parcel to the east, if possible.
Locational Advantages - Other issues which merit discussion relate to locational advantages of the
plan amendment area . The plan amendment area is one block away from one of Oakley's primary
retail/service shopping areas. The close proximity to retail stores which feature a grocery market,
commonly-used consumer goods, and a pharmacy provides convenience to the senior population.
Because these services are within close walking distance the plan amendment the use of automobiles,
for short trips, will likely decrease.
7
Minimal Infrastructure Costs - Because the plan amendment area is located in an area which already
contains needed infrastructure such as roads,water and sewer lines,etc. , project costs will be limited
to only providing project-related hookups and hence will lead to a lower end cost per unit.
Visual Aesthetics -The County General Plan contains several policies relating to visual aesthetics.
Although the proposed plan amendment will allow for a much more derise level of development, the
clustered development concept should result in structures which are of similar height to the existing
homes to the west and north.
The general appearance of the resulting buildings, if similar in architectural design to existing single
family homes, should minimize visual inconsistencies between developments. Although site specific
planning matters are not an issue for discussion as part of this general plan amendment, sensible
architectural design to ensure compatibility with existing homes and the provision of landscaping and
visual buffers should address this issue from a general plan policy perspective.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution for .APPROVAL of the proposed
plan amendment to designate the area for Multiple Family Residential, Very High Density according
to the attached map and text.
MrsMedWKsW orrision GPA(5.93-EC)Oaldey Senior Housing GPA SR
8
OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (5-93-EC)
To integrate the Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment into the County General Plan the
following new policy is proposed.
1) Amend the County General Plan Land Use Map for the plan amendment area from Single
Family Residential, High Density to Multiple Family Residential, Very High Density
according to Map A, attached.
2) Add New Policy 3-65a (page 3-54) to the Oakley/North Brentwood Section of the County
General Plan Land Use Element-
The Multiple Family Residential, Very High Density land use designation, as it applies to this
property, is intended to support the development of up to 50 senior, clustered housing units.
If a senior citizen housing project is not constructed, the property will be limited to a single
family residential density as allowed by the pre-existing (Single Family Residential, High
Density 5.0-7.2 units/net acre) General Plan land use designation.
To ensure architectural design compatibility with existing and nearby homes, a visual analysis
shall be provided as part of the current planning permit approval process. The visual analysis
shall study and provide recommendations on a development concept which reflects the
following policy direction:
• A clustered building type which allows for both one and two-story, structures; and
• Provision of adequate landscaping and other buffers to further reduce potential land
use and visual conflicts with existing and potential residential development near the
plan amendment area.
The resulting project shall consider use of Oakley Road and Kelsey Lane for project access.
Project ingress and egress shall be designed to minimize Oakley Road turn movements. If
possible, access into the plan amendment area shall also consider potential development of the
adjacent parcel on the east side of the site.
9
OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
County File#5-93-EC
♦ ♦ 4 4
•
-Q ]FII SH
NORTH HI �•
I"= 6W-
. LEGEND
PR
SL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW ♦ 4
SH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-HIGH
ML MEDIUM FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW c®
MM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM
MVH MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-VERY HIGH e,�•
LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LI
HI HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
CO COMMERCIAL •
PR PARKS &RECREATION
I I
• SH
SH .
r
s
' qr•.a.n L ! S
wr
o.ni•.o
CO
SL
-♦ ----- - --- SH
ML
-------- -------- -- ML ---- r�
' ' ASH------------
'
8
MAPA PROPOSED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
Communitycontra Harvey E. Bragdon
Development lel It Director of Community Development
Department �OSta
County Administration Building County
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
'- :�
Martinez, California 94553-0095 - • 5,
Phone: l
(510)646-2035t'
•Y
^tG COUN'n C
May 4, 1993
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (5-93-EC) : This is a proposed plan amendment request
to change the County General Plan land use designation for a 1.92 acre property from SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY(5.0—7.2 UNITS/NET ACRE)to MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY (21.0
—29.9 UNITS/NET ACRE). The proposed plan amendment would support up to 50 senior housing units.
Subject property for the above referenced project is approximately 1.92 acres in size and located on the
north side of Oakley Road between Live Oak Avenue and Highway 4 in the Oakley area.
(CT: 3020.00; APN:037-390-101).
Project Description - The proposed plan amendment is intended to support up to 50 senior housing units.
The project would feature a "density bonus" to achieve these 50 units. The plan amendment change to
Multiple Family Residential, ilk High Density would allow the development of up to 40 units. Awarding a
25 percent density bonus will result in an 10 additional units. The density bonus provision is allowed by
State Law and County Ordinance and is a means for the County to provide affordable housing units as
stipulated in the County Housing Element. This is a separate, County-initiated project and is not related to
previous notices regarding a three unit minor subdivision application (MS 17-93) for this same site.
This is a notice of staff's determination of the environmental impact of the above project. Interested persons
may contact Mr. Matt Tomas of the Contra Costa County, Community Development Department, directly by
1
letter to convey any concerns or comments that they may have about the envrionmental review for this
project no later than Monday, June 7, 1993 at 5:00 pm to:
Mr. Matt Tomas
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street 4th Floor/North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2035
Harvey E. Bragdon, Director
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
2
OAKLEY SENIOR HousiNG
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
COUNTY FILE # 5-93-EC
EwsTiNG GENERAL PIAN: SINGLE FAmum REWDENnAL,HIGH OENstTY(5.0-7.2 uNrrslNET ACRE)
PRoPOsED GENERAL PLAN: MULTIPLE FAmtLY RESIDENTIAL,HIGH DENsrry (21.0-29.9 a fTSJNET ACRES)
rrff
W
N •
i
v t
1
i I I J
Vicinity Map
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent:
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT,
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponents:
651 PINE STREET
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
c% Matt Tomas, Senior Planner
510/646-2035
3. Date Checklist Submitted: March 30. 1993.
4. Name of Proposal, 'tf applicable:
Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (5-93-EC)
Quad Sheet: General Plan Designation:
Brentwood Existing: Siegle Family Residential. High Density
Parcel #: Proposed: Muftiple Family Residential.Very High Density
037-100-007
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all significant, (S),answers are required on attached sheets.)
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: S
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes ingeologic substructures? f
b. Disruptions,displacements,compaction or vercovering of the soil? ✓
Please Note: "S" is for significant; "1" is for insignificant
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,or changes in
siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,inlet or lake?
g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? ✓
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deteriorationof ancient air quality? ✓
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ✓
C. Alteration of air movement,moisture,or temperature,or any
change in climate,either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents,or the course offlirection of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and
amount of surfacerunoff? V/
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ✓
e. Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ✓
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or ✓
withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies? ✓
L ExpQpure of people or property to waterrelated hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves? ✓
Please Note: "S" is for significant; 'I" is for insignificant
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of ✓
plants(including trees,shrubs,grass,crops,and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the ✓
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ✓
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish,
benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals? ✓
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of animals? ✓
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ✓
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ✓
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ✓
S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area? ✓
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ✓
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant
a A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including,but not limited to oil,pesticides,chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
11 . Population. Will the proposal after the location,distribution,density, or
growth rate of the human population of an area? IgC-
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand
for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,or demand for new parking? V
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns ofcirculation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne,rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a.need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
a Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ✓
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard
(excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view? *C 43?o"ate,
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or ✓
quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building,
structure,or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare orendangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant
period of time while long-term impacts will well into the future.)
c. Does the project.have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.) ✓
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly indirectly?
Ill. Discussion of -Environmental Evaluation
See attachments.
V.. Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
• 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
• 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this :ase
because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
• 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Signa Date
Reviewed By Date
Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant
Responses to the Oakley Senior Housing GPA
Environmental Initial Study
Proposed Negative Declaration
March 22, 1993
Project Description -These are staff responses to a proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance (no environmental impact report required) for a proposed general plan amendment for
a 1.29 acre property, located on the north side of Oakley Road between Live Oak Avenue and
Highway 4 in the Oakley area.
The proposed plan amendment is a request to change the County General Plan land use designation
from SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY(5.0—7.2 UNIT/NET ACRE)to MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY (30.0—44.9 UNIT/NET ACRE). The development concept, at this time,
proposes to construct up to 40 attached senior housing units not including a 25 percent density
bonus; 10 additional units would be created through the density bonus. The density bonus provision
is allowed by State Law and County Ordinance if a minimum 25 percent of the units are
"affordable" to selected income groups meeting the County's affordability requirements. The
development concept calls for the creation of up to 50 single story, clustered units to accomodate a
senior citizen population.
Summary of Issues - Staff has reviewed and determined that the proposed land use change would not
create any significant environmental impacts under the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA). The plan amendment area is in an area which is already designated for urban
development. There are no urban service constraints facing the proposed development as the site is
within all urban service boundaries.
Circulation - Traffic generation under the proposed MUTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH
DENSITY designation does not trigger Measure C - 1988 requirements for a traffic study since it is well
under the 100 peak hour trip threshold.
County Growth Management Considerations - Measure C - 1990 resulted in the County adopting a
Growth Managment Program which establishes minimum levels of services for the typical urban
services which are needed to support proposed development. Since the plan amendment area is
already contained within existing service area boundaries (fire,police, sanitary sewer, water, flood
control, school facilities and parks) for the major urban services needed to support the proposal, the
concerns relating to these considerations have been addressed. The proposed change would not
affect the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Standard since it is merely an intensification of an
existing urban designation and does not result in the conversion of land under a non-urban
1
Responses to the Oakley Senior Housing GPA
Environmental Initiaf Study
Proposed Negative Declaration
March 22, 1993
designation.
The following are staff s responses to the Initial Study Checklist.
8. Lend Use
a. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area?
The proposed land use change to increase the allowable residential density raises limited issues under
the provisions of CEQA. The issues to consider are the related development density increase and -
potential conflicts with surrounding uses.
The proposed residential density and envisioned housing type will lead to a more intense
development than what is now allowed by the County General Plan At this time, a single-story
building type is envisioned which will be lower in height than the existing two-story single family
detached structures found in the adjacent subdivision. The single-story building type is the best
solution for providing easy access for the senior residents.
The envisioned building masses in the senior housing project will not compete with or block existing
views of the existing residences. Future CEQA review will be required when a more specific
development concept is proposed.
11. Population
The proposed plan amendment change will increase the amount of local population in the immediate
area. One could reasonable assume an increase between 100 and 200 senior citizens and associated
staff.. However, because the site is already designated for urban development the primary
consideration becomes the availability of urban services needed to support such a population. Since
there are no public service constraints for the plan amendment area is is .assumed that the resulting
increase in population can be adequately served.
Additional CEQA analysis will be required to study any special service needs for such a population.
12. Housing
2
Responses to the Oakley Senior Housing GPA
Environmental Initial Study
Proposed Negative Declaration
March 22, 1993
The proposed request will enable the applicant and County to provide an affordable housing type
which is currently in demand. A senior housing project such as this will help fill this particular niche
In the Oakley housing market. In addition, the project will enable the County to implement various
portions of its Housing Element and to meet some of its affordable housing goals as required under
State Law.
13 Transportation/Circulation
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
The proposed plan amendment request is well under the 100 peak hour trip threshold for a traffic
study and does not need further analysis per the requirements of Measure C - 1988.
Traffic movement ingress and egress might use a separate access into the proposed project. There is
an existing street from Oakley Road which serves the newly constructed subdivision and fronts along
.the western plan amendment boundary. If that street was used to provide project access it is
anticipated that the low trip generation associated with the senior housing project would not
significantly affect movement onto Oakley Road
This issue is identified here for purposes of the general plan amendment, but may need further
assessment as part of the separate CEQA review which would be needed for forthcoming land use
entitlements if the plan amendment is approved.
18. Aesthetics
The proposed project envisions using three or four single-story structures which would house the 50
residential units. There will be little, if no visual impacts of the proposed project. If needed,
landscape buffering could provide a more pleasing visual environment as well as a buffer between the
project and existing homes to the north. These issues will be revisited if and when a development
concept is formalized.
MT'sHD\GPA's15-93-EC\EIS Responses
3
CITIZENS FOR AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING (CASH)
Updated Membership List for October 24 , 1991 .
President: Patti Kratina
Vice-President: Bev Novarina
Secretary: Cheri Budesilich
Treasurer: Debbie Cowger
OMAC Senior Housing Sub-Committee: Chairperson Patti
Kratina Members: Marie Woods, Bev Novarina, Cheri
Budesilich, Ed Mintor, and Lucille Kretschmer.
County Liaison Committee Chairperson: Marie Woods
Membership: Marie McCoy
Transportation Manager: Ray Novarina
Support Membership for Senior Housing in Oakley
1 . Father Cortez 26 . Stan Planchon
-2. Hugh Jenkins 27. Bernice Jenkins
3. Cathy Clausen 28. Debbie Cowger
4. Marie Woods 29. Patti Kratina
5. Cheri Budesilich 30. Barbara Fernandes
6. Tom Budesilich 31 . May Chou
7. Ralph Brock 32 . Richard Kearney
8. Donna Brock 33. Nancy Huffaker
9. Myra Brown 34 . Marie McCoy
10. Glen Scimger 35. Richard Brown
11 . Bev Novarina 36. Maureen McGlathery
12. Ray Novarina 37. Daniel McGlathery
13. Mark Jordan 38. Norma Jann
14. Lori Jordan 39. Dick Jann
15. Ralph Zuniga 40. John Dailey
16. Brenda Zuniga 41 . Natalie Kearney
17. Irene Martinez 42 . Margaret Boze
18. Myra Harrison 43 . Joseph Fraga
19. Ed Mintor 44 . Marguerite Fraga
20. Lucille Kretschmer 45. Stephen. Chou
21 . Abe Amador 46. Julie Foreman
22. Jeff Huffaker 47 . Ben Foreman
23 . Joe Tovas 48. Mike Cowger
24 . Linda Riggs 49. Joan Greenawalt
25. Joe Riggs 50. Audrey Dailey
51 . Gertie Planchon
52. Louisa Glenn
•
PIP
5N ON
CNSI
o up
June 6, 1993
To: East County Regional Planning Commission
From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development
We the tax payers residing,within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather
Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan
Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment
request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family
Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 Unitis/Net Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 Units/Net
Aare).
As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and we
vehemently oppose any proposed changes.
The proposed changes would:
Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in
fewer taxes to the county.
Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind.
Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity.
Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety.
Public transportation is not within close proximity
Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children.
Hospital access is not within close proximity.
Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan.
Be It known that we individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void.
Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential) land use designations remain as is.
Name Address
1L t � •
/ 2-D Llemt
, Vat,
? 0 ()n 1'401"1
1
r��� -D Vel -tnu L6n _ oA4�-fit/
June 6, 1993
To: East County Regional Planning Commission
From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development
We the tax payers residing within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather
Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan
Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment
request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family
Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 UnitistNet Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 UnIts/Net
Acre).
As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and we
vehemently oppose any proposed changes.
The proposed changes would:
Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in
fewer taxes to the county.
Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind.
Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity.
Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety.
Public transportation is not within close proximity
Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children.
Hospital access is not within close proximity.
Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan.
Be It known that we Individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void.
Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential)land use designations remain as is.
Name Address
ZZs-Z
ly
*3
Y-
V
A le
June 6, 1993
To: East County Regional Planning Commission
From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development
We the tax payers residing within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather
Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan
Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment
request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family
Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 Unitis/Net Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 Units/Net
Acre).
As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single farnily residential zoning (R-6) and we
vehemently oppose any proposed changes.
The proposed changes would:
t Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in
fewer taxes to the county.
2 Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind.
s Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity.
y Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety.
S Public transportation is not within close proximity
Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children.
7 Hospital access is not within close proximity.
y Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan.
Be it known that we individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void.
Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential) land use designations remain as is.
Name Address
5100 L—A. 0�!'.l.e.v 9 q 5(o I
r p /
.2ao� li��i✓IU.�y Gov
23CA
CA lindsar n� C� l CW /l
&qt t4 j, 2,2/01 io Seh LGhe a,�(e �7
, O,A- c1 S 6
�� .2 J�U //✓/�lLLt'Sa� �l il �,Q-�li<G� L//� S �f'� 6�
June 6, 1993
To: East County Regional Planning Commission
From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development
We the tax payers residing within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather
Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan
Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated,general plan amendment
request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family
Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 UnitistNet Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 UnitstNet
Acre).
As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and we
vehemently oppose any proposed changes.
The proposed changes would:
Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in
fewer taxes to the county.
Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind.
Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity.
Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety.
Public transportation is not within close proximity
Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children.
Hospital access is not within close proximity.
Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan.
Be It known that we Individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void.
Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential)land use designations remain as is.
Name Address
A
C' 57 4,
L&
V-'1 9
C
CR q q X01
ye1rrnn2-. qz'(�
June 6, 1993
To: East County Regional Planning Commission
From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development
We the tax payers residing Within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather
.Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan
Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment
request to change the County General Plan land. use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family
Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 Unitis/Net Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 Units/Net
Acre).'
As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and,we
vehemently oppose any proposed changes.
The proposed changes would:
Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in
fewer taxes to the county.
Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind.
Emergency Medical services are not with inclose proximity;
Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety.
Public transportation is not within close proximity
Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children.
Hospital access is not within close proximity.
Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan.
Be it known that we individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void.
Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential)land.use designations remain as is.
Name Address
I tAj 1 ni6 co YZ 0- r.
Je,i i Wiodstr C+. k.-.1-T
I .,
I N-1
LT- 0T wc-,A, Q i-
Zr
JVAWL- - '70
.017
CCAA?C"ev r— le-1-lCy
-4
kAl 6A
June 6, 1993
To: East County Regional Planning Commission
From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development
We the tax payers residing within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather
Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan
Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment
request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family
Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 Unitis/Net Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 Units/Net
Acre).
As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and we
vehemently oppose any proposed changes.
The proposed changes would:
Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in
fewer taxes to the county.
Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind.
Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity.
Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety.
Public transportation is not within close proximity
Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children.
Hospital access is not within close proximity.
Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan.
Be It known that we Individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void.
Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential) land use designations remain as is.
Name Address
1,,Arvti Djq
_ I
0.
IV
U
G
June 6, 1993 .
To: East County Regional Planning Commission
From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development
We the tax payers residing within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather
Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan
Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment
request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family
Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 Unitis/Net Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 Units/Net
Acre).
As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and we
vehemently oppose any proposed changes.
The proposed changes would:
Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in
fewer taxes to the county.
Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind.
Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity.
Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety.
Public transportation is not within close proximity
Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children.
Hospital access is not within close proximity.
Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan.
Be it known that we individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void.
Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential) land use designations remain as is.
Na Address
047 �144 H,P
St 714 C!a to-r°ann .o� -
C-
V--
&4r U. 0i!'ti;6y Llclua
2330 r ✓i,✓ciSe/ Iu,✓c�
104- d,31 Npsbk LAn1,--=